GHC has been able to form larger and larger pockets with each passing turn as over all SHC CV and counter numbers start to drop. Peak SHC OOB was 7,306,000 and in 5 turns GHC has destroyed 508 AP worth of units with another 216 in pockets waiting to get wiped. So even if SHC had 500 saved up, its been wiped out and the crunch has begun.

At this point over all SHC CV will start dropping as replasements will be mainly dumped into the new units( 5 divisions or 10 brigades per turn) being formed and not going to front line units.

Lines have been thinned out and forming new pockets will become easyer with each passing turn as there are less units and over-all units CV is dropping. If the SHC did not have 500 saved up on turn 52 then a AP crunch might be already under way.

At this point GHC should totally ignore panzer tank#s and hammer away until mid 43. MP's stay the same no matter how many tanks are in each division.

As long as GHC can keep forming small pockets of 5 to 10 divisions per turn SHC strength will keep dropping and GHC will be able to stay on the offensive far into 43.

At some point in 43 GHC will have to change over to the defensive, but by then the game should be well in hand.

SHC will have to take another 40 - 50 turns to change over to and offensive Red army, but GHC army will be able to use reserve mode for another 20-30 turns. This will not leave nearly enough time for SHC to get close to a draw.

Large pockets are not needed, just pockets. Ignore land/VP's/tank numbers/ manpower centers ect.

If your able to get the crunch going before August your going to win from my past exp. If you don't then you still have a 50/50 chance at a draw.

Which will depend more on the skill of the SHC then your own as you will not have any options other then being a punching bag for 150 turns.

1942+

5-3-3

5 - 0 when AP crunch starts by August and 3 loses and 3 draws when its doesn't get rolling by August.

Pelton, I think that your strategy is absolutely correct, and very dangerous for Sov players, because generally in 1942 they are not free to repeat the wholesale retreats favored in 1941 (of course they can retreat, but to do so would probably cost them Moscow and put them too far from Berlin to reach it in time for a win.

It's certainly a viable method. But I don't agree it should be possible to cripple the Sov's through AP shortages. I don't think it should cost the Sov's any AP to build replacement units. Only new formations. It's a hole that should be plugged.

Also, I actually don't think that this strategy will work in Pelton's game with you, your army is too big and I think you should be able to prevent or break open enough pockets to keep your huge army from getting whittled down much.

It's certainly a viable method. But I don't agree it should be possible to cripple the Sov's through AP shortages. I don't think it should cost the Sov's any AP to build replacement units. Only new formations. It's a hole that should be plugged.

Units should not be "built" on turn 54 and also be on line fighting turn 55 even "replasement units". It would take months to trian units, even to the crappy russian lvl of "morale/exp".

Having units magicly appear and then on-line fighting the next turn is certianly not a relistic method as you seem to want, thats to Middle Earth and not WW2. It doesn't reflex the historical issues fased by Stalin and his poeple at the time of WW2.

Mybee "building" the unit after its destoried then appearring on the eastern side of map 8 to 12 turns later.

Still its an AP crunch. or more like a build crunch. 2by3's system is much better then your idea.

The current AP method is the one thing 2by3 got 100% right. It reflects the logistical headache of training officers/men and the systems that were used. It reflexs the command and control issues that the Red army was fased with on the eastern front.

I think 2by3's current AP system 100% reflexs the historical problems that would be fased by "players" if they were in charge of the Red Army in WW2. not being able to build/merge units unitil date X and costing Y AP's.

I think before just dumping on the current AP system you might want to have an idea of what to replace it with. I don't think if the SHC losses 30 divisions on turn 54 that it should be able to ask Gandalf to magicly create 30 divisions on turn 55 and have them fighting on turn 56.

This is Earth and not Middle Earth.

Even if you come up with a good idea it will not beable to be put in plase unless the current system is completely over hauled. Which we know will not be for years.

The current system is historical and works very good reflexing the historical issues faced by the Russians.

Also, I actually don't think that this strategy will work in Pelton's game with you, your army is too big and I think you should be able to prevent or break open enough pockets to keep your huge army from getting whittled down much.

But I guess we'll see...

It should be possible and is historical. As I explianed in the above post. Russian players should not be asking Gandalf to magicly create the 30 divisions destoryed on turn 54 on turn 55 and have them on line turn 56. Its totally unrealistic.

This strategy will work "IF" I can get the ball rolling so to speak in my game vs MT. Thats why the push back from MT he already knows it works vs any size Red Army, IF the GHC is able to start it.

MT I am sure is building units every turn now to expend the AP and not "lose" them. To many units makes forming pockets easy as it waters down the over-all CV strenght per unit.

If and its a big if I am able to start a AP crunch and keep it rolling MT will be losing allot of men per unit as his army will by close to 9 million by summer. Now he might have 1,2 or even 3 million men in the bank, BUT if he loses to many units these men will remain in the bank for most of the war. The key yr of 43 they will simply sit there usless in the manpower pool bleeding out far to slowly to be usefull until late 43, when its TO - LATE.

Why because they will have no plase to go. Thats why I say the size of the SHC OOB doesn't matter to me IF I or anyone esle for that matter gets an AP crunch rolling. It will still take a year to refit the Red Army to beable to start pushing east. If GHC was able to get an AP crunch going that means GHC gained allot of space and the time required for the REd Army to build an offensive army will give the GHC time to get there OOB close to 4 million men. Then it will take another 20+ turns to get past the reserve mode tactics of GHC. By the time the Red machine gets rolling its to late to win and a 50/50 chance at a draw.

An AP crunch will work vs a 6 million or 10 million man SHC army.

Think it though and its easy to see why.

I know I have tested it.

I have been wanting to test out Field Marshalls von Rundstedt plan for the 41/42 winter for a long time vs a skilled player.

Thats why I farmed morale all summer and pulled back as soon as I reached the lvled I beleived I needed.

I already have a larger army then is seen by June 42 with another 30+ new divisions still to arrive.

I have stacked the deck in my favor from the beginning of turn 1 to try and make Field Marshalls von Rundstedt plan work.

Its simply a historically based "what if" for GHC.

As we all know GHC what ifs generally get the nerf bat, but lets keep and open mind and see if an historically based GHC "what if" is treated like SHC what ifs.

Lets hope heliodorus04 is wrong about GHC and SHC what ifs and how 2by3 looks at each sides what "ifs".

I did not really put any idea forward. Other than I think the current setup is flawed. I would think the same method of replacing destoryed units that is in effect in 1941 would be better. And for the record you cannot build a unit on T55 and have it ready on T56. It takes 3 moves before it can even move, yes its fixed and then another 3 or 4 turns to get morale up to speed. At this point you will have a unit that is full strength, max morale, but zippo experience after about 6 or 7 turns.

Also I don't bring this up in relation to our game. I am not concerned in the slightest about it. I have thought this 'AP crunch thingy' a problem with the game that should be fixed for some time. Like I have said many times. I don't favour either side. I advocate for a better game.

This over-all strategy is part of the 41 grind tactics that more and more GHC players are using vs the SHC strategy - southern checker baord/northern over-load we are all seeing more and more post 1.06.13.

Big thanks to Jamian's and Flaviusx's AAR that first showed this grinding tactic.

It's certainly a viable method. But I don't agree it should be possible to cripple the Sov's through AP shortages. I don't think it should cost the Sov's any AP to build replacement units. Only new formations. It's a hole that should be plugged.

I have floated an idea that after Oct '41, re-building destroyed, buildable combat units should cost 20% of building a new at the time (RD cost 20 until May '42, so 4 to re-build). Sadly, the dev's did not bite.

It says that between July and December 1941 the Sovs mobilized 278 rifle divisions, and mobilized and deployed 182 of these. Moreover, it only took a month to mobilize and deploy a rifle division. Maybe it seems to Middle Earth to you, but the Sovs did it...

Also, I don't think that the AP crunch will work as well with a big army as a small one, for two reasons: the bigger army means that you will find it harder to create and hold pockets, and he already has enough divisions that the first several dozen that he loses don't make much difference (this also assumes that the Sov player creates a couple rifle divs every turn, before he needs them. I could be wrong, but that's my view.

It says that between July and December 1941 the Sovs mobilized 278 rifle divisions, and mobilized and deployed 182 of these. Moreover, it only took a month to mobilize and deploy a rifle division. Maybe it seems to Middle Earth to you, but the Sovs did it...

Also, I don't think that the AP crunch will work as well with a big army as a small one, for two reasons: the bigger army means that you will find it harder to create and hold pockets, and he already has enough divisions that the first several dozen that he loses don't make much difference (this also assumes that the Sov player creates a couple rifle divs every turn, before he needs them. I could be wrong, but that's my view.

The current system already reflexs the issue's in your link. You cant just magicly build 30, 40 or 60 divisions in a single turn. Historically SHC was able to only build x divisions per week. Under the current system with what you can build 180 is not out of reach from June to Dec. So your point has alrdy been historically reflexed by 2by3.

2by3 is right no target with that your saying alrdy, yes yes they did that right hehehehe

The issue is 42 and not 41. 41 as we all know has been right now for a yr+.

1941 is not Middle Earth it is 100% a Home Run by 2by3. Bro this is very old news.

They also raised 5M men in July '41 alone; any comparisons with historical numbers and Manpower shortages should take into account that in the game there are 4M-5M men un-raised before the so-called bottom of the barrel becomes visible.

It's certainly a viable method. But I don't agree it should be possible to cripple the Sov's through AP shortages. I don't think it should cost the Sov's any AP to build replacement units. Only new formations. It's a hole that should be plugged.

Yes, god forbid the German actually have a path to victory...

Pelton, you can't win. If you find a strategy that works against SHC, the Sovie-o-phile fanboi base will promptly ensure it is patched out of existence.

Your AP choke strategy will very soon be patched out of the game by whatever method they can justify (probably doing exactly what Micheal says).

It used to be that they argued that the AP issue that the Soviets face was an intended design challenge, which is how they justified the fact that the Soviet pays 350% less to re-assign units to new HQs. Now, it's 'a hole that needs to be plugged'...

Pelton's suggested strategy is a valid one. It is an attritional strategy - which are about the only types of strategy that will really work against either side in WitE. The challenge is on the Soviet's side to avoid Pelton's strategy from working. The Soviets were able to give ground in 42 to prevent the major pockets from forming as they did in 41. Stalin gave orders specifically to save the divisional and army HQ staffs because they were running out of officers trained sufficiently to manage divisions and armies. The grunts were untrained but Stalin (and the USSR overall) could live with that, but without the officer cadre for the divisions the grunts were just large masses of men that had to be moved around, pointed in the correct direction, and then herded there.

"I'm not sure why you think it would take 8-12 weeks to create Sov divisions"

In this game it takes at least 3 weeks to create, refit and unfreeze a new SOviet unit, and even then it is barely ready for combat.

Marquo

Units as you know per a patch have a ZOC so even units you call usless are very usfull+ FOW.

Also then men,equipment,fuel,food don't magicly appear at location X.

As you allready know Marquo,MT and others - 2by3 has stated that the AP system is by design to give the players the same challenges that were fased by Soviets.

Like Carlkay58 points out officers don't magiclly appear eather.

ALL armys have to set up a pipe line so that officers, soldiers ect ect can go from the street to the front.

Only so many can be put through the pipe line. Once the first blob of reserveist/former army men and officers were drafted in the first 6 months, the SHC was only able to train X amount of men per month.

This is historical and 2by3 has done there work and this is as has been stated why the AP system is the way it is.

SHC can't just magicly pull 30 divisions out of their butts in a single week in 1942 , get real.

Pelton, when you like a game feature you claim it is historical and that the devs got it right, but when you don't like it is an ahistorical, gamey abomination!

To just address a couple of your points: 1) You claim that just-created Sov units are "very useful" for ZoC and FoW reasons. I don't know many Sov players that create new divs for the these effects, generally if you create a unit you want it to live past its first week. These new unit are depeleted so can hardly be used for combat. If your complaint is that these units should not have a ZoC, I would tend to agree with you (although I'm not certain that they have one).

2) Regarding your claim that "the AP system is by design to give the players the same challenges that were fased by Soviets." Sure, that was the intent, it just doesn't work well. Next question...

3) Your claim that the Sovs could only mobilize so many men in 1941 because they recruited only " reserveist/former army men and officers" is just wrong--the Sovs recruited pretty much everyone in 1941, and the big surge in mobilization occurred because, you know, their country had been invaded, not because they were able to recruit reservists.

4) I don't understand your arguments about not being able to create divisions... As far as I'm concerned, the Sovs should be able to create an unlimited number of rifle divisions BUT such formations would be completely useless (and empty) until they had been filled with men and arms via the production/manpower pipeline. This is the main point--no one is saying that there should not be any constraints on new Sov units, just that AP is not the right way to limit the number of units. The limit should be on how to man/equip these units, not on creating a box on an OOB. So I tihnk I should be able to create 30 divs in one week--after all creating a unit counter is essentially a paper exercise--but the more divs I create, the longer it would take to fill them, and so the longer they would remain useless.

Pelton, you can't win. If you find a strategy that works against SHC, the Sovie-o-phile fanboi base will promptly ensure it is patched out of existence.

Your AP choke strategy will very soon be patched out of the game by whatever method they can justify (probably doing exactly what Micheal says).

It used to be that they argued that the AP issue that the Soviets face was an intended design challenge, which is how they justified the fact that the Soviet pays 350% less to re-assign units to new HQs. Now, it's 'a hole that needs to be plugged'...

It is interesting that nearly 2 years after I posted this http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2705668 ,Pelton has finally come to advocate the exact same strategy. This path to victory has always been there, and has not been affected by any of the changes to the game since I wrote the strategy guide way back when. Indeed, if anything the task has been made easier for the Axis as the blizzard has been made easier to survive from when I wrote the guide, and Axis manpower problems have also been eased with the Hiwi rule.

The whole "AP crunch" concept is there to give players the chance to achieve what the axis could not achieve in 1942, namely the destruction of the Red Army, because as has been pointed out,historically they were allowed by Stavka to avoid encirclements, unlike 1941. If the Axis do more damage to the Red Army in 1942 than historically, the AP crunch caused, gives a possible path to victory.

In the 2 campaigns I played following this strategy, both were won in 1942 when the soviets decided they could not repair the damage I did to them in the spring/summer of 1942.

The one remaining "fix" I think the game needs is to find a way to reward the Axis more if the Soviet player follows a runaway strategy and suffers lower than historical losses before the blizzard. The quid pro quo for the runaway should be that the Axis have a 1942 start line further east than historical, but this rarely happens, especially in the south.

Unfortunately I can't see a way with the current mechanics to reflect the runaway, unless there was some way to link the harshness of the blizzard to the amount of territory gained/VPs when the blizzard starts.

Pelton, when you like a game feature you claim it is historical and that the devs got it right, but when you don't like it is an ahistorical, gamey abomination!

To just address a couple of your points: 1) You claim that just-created Sov units are "very useful" for ZoC and FoW reasons. I don't know many Sov players that create new divs for the these effects, generally if you create a unit you want it to live past its first week. These new unit are depeleted so can hardly be used for combat. If your complaint is that these units should not have a ZoC, I would tend to agree with you (although I'm not certain that they have one).

2) Regarding your claim that "the AP system is by design to give the players the same challenges that were fased by Soviets." Sure, that was the intent, it just doesn't work well. Next question...

3) Your claim that the Sovs could only mobilize so many men in 1941 because they recruited only " reserveist/former army men and officers" is just wrong--the Sovs recruited pretty much everyone in 1941, and the big surge in mobilization occurred because, you know, their country had been invaded, not because they were able to recruit reservists.

4) I don't understand your arguments about not being able to create divisions... As far as I'm concerned, the Sovs should be able to create an unlimited number of rifle divisions BUT such formations would be completely useless (and empty) until they had been filled with men and arms via the production/manpower pipeline. This is the main point--no one is saying that there should not be any constraints on new Sov units, just that AP is not the right way to limit the number of units. The limit should be on how to man/equip these units, not on creating a box on an OOB. So I tihnk I should be able to create 30 divs in one week--after all creating a unit counter is essentially a paper exercise--but the more divs I create, the longer it would take to fill them, and so the longer they would remain useless.

1. If creating units was free as per MT then you see poeple flooding the battle field with them. SHC has to simply slow down GHC so SHC would create 0-0 Cv units that get destoryed then throw them into the mix and keep refit off.

2. Working fine. Its been over a yr and this is the first time I seen people asking for something different.

3. I in now way disagree with what your saying at all? I have said 3 times that I am talking about 1942, and you keep whining about 1941. 1941 is historical ther is no shortage of units and SHC can build even more. No idea for the 3rd time what your talking about as far as 41 goes.

Your kicking the crap out of a 1941 Strawman. I am in 42-45.

4. Again this would be the greatest SHC I win button ever. SHC players would simply have to flood the map with 0-0 units. Poland to Moscow. Yes totally historical, russian does not have limitless amounts of officers.

2by3 has stated that the AP system is by design to give the players the same challenges that were fased by Soviets and to avoid (your #4 SHC) I win button exploits you and other would love to have.

Pelton, you can't win. If you find a strategy that works against SHC, the Sovie-o-phile fanboi base will promptly ensure it is patched out of existence.

Your AP choke strategy will very soon be patched out of the game by whatever method they can justify (probably doing exactly what Micheal says).

It used to be that they argued that the AP issue that the Soviets face was an intended design challenge, which is how they justified the fact that the Soviet pays 350% less to re-assign units to new HQs. Now, it's 'a hole that needs to be plugged'...

It is interesting that nearly 2 years after I posted this http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2705668 ,Pelton has finally come to advocate the exact same strategy. This path to victory has always been there, and has not been affected by any of the changes to the game since I wrote the strategy guide way back when. Indeed, if anything the task has been made easier for the Axis as the blizzard has been made easier to survive from when I wrote the guide, and Axis manpower problems have also been eased with the Hiwi rule.

The whole "AP crunch" concept is there to give players the chance to achieve what the axis could not achieve in 1942, namely the destruction of the Red Army, because as has been pointed out,historically they were allowed by Stavka to avoid encirclements, unlike 1941. If the Axis do more damage to the Red Army in 1942 than historically, the AP crunch caused, gives a possible path to victory.

In the 2 campaigns I played following this strategy, both were won in 1942 when the soviets decided they could not repair the damage I did to them in the spring/summer of 1942.

The one remaining "fix" I think the game needs is to find a way to reward the Axis more if the Soviet player follows a runaway strategy and suffers lower than historical losses before the blizzard. The quid pro quo for the runaway should be that the Axis have a 1942 start line further east than historical, but this rarely happens, especially in the south.

Unfortunately I can't see a way with the current mechanics to reflect the runaway, unless there was some way to link the harshness of the blizzard to the amount of territory gained/VPs when the blizzard starts.

Sorry I never read that. Your post is not real clear on the how and why. But is a gold nugget in there if you been around for a while.

Most GHC players use the easyest path to victory. Until .13 winning by AP crunch was really not needed in anyones tool kit as the supply system had more loopholes then the tax code in US.

Before the .13 nerf I started playing based on the AP crunch vs M60 and others. As the writing was on the wall muling ect was going to get nerfed finally in the near future.

I agree with your last point, not sure on fix other then a VP system.

The current system most "newbie" vs Newbie games the SHC holds at close to the major rivers then wipes out GHC in the blizzard to the point the German army is usless come 42 summer.

I think on balance game is about as good as they are going to get it.

All thiings being equal there are far more 10-0+ SHC players then 10-0+ then GHC players. And most if not all beleive its easyer to play SHC side. As it should be.

In my game vs Hugh hes avoided pockets and given ground in 42, but the VP's are at 228( July 42 )in a 260 VP game. I have yet to get close to Moscow. So lowering the VP total needed has made the game more interesting. I think mybee coding in VP sudden death for 41/42/43/44 would make it less likely that SHC or GHC would run.

4. Again this would be the greatest SHC I win button ever. SHC players would simply have to flood the map with 0-0 units. Poland to Moscow. Yes totally historical, russian does not have limitless amounts of officers.

2by3 has stated that the AP system is by design to give the players the same challenges that were fased by Soviets and to avoid (your #4 SHC) I win button exploits you and other would love to have.

You're going to have to explain why filling the map with 0-0 units is an I-win button, because it is not very obvious. If these units have a ZoC (I have not checked) that should be fixed. Otherwise I don't see the big advantage, so you'll have to explain.

Your second comment--that I in particular as well as others are seeking some kind of exploit--is pretty rich, especially coming from the mule-king. I have argued in plenty of threads about how the Sovs could/should be weaker in some respects, so don't talk to me about how I'm looking for exploits.

Finally, your constant referral to 2x3's design choice as proof that something is correct is also very humourous coming from you, who campaigned against another of their design decisions re the 1:1->2:1 rule.

ORIGINAL: Pelton But this thread is not about if it is right or wrong, but how the AP crunch works. Its 1 of the few ways left for GHC to win as BigAnorak and others have pointed out. It is by design and not an exploit as muling and other things were.

All true, this is certainly a very solid strategy, not an exploit, and not even what I would call "gamey". It is just, like other parts of the game, something that I don't consider particularly realistic or well-designed.